Understanding Motivation

We often use interesting phraseology when we discuss our employees’ motivation. We talk about “what drives people,” or “what’s pushing them” to reach their goals, terminology that suggests that the individual is the subject or recipient of the motivation, instead of the source. This in turn suggests that all motivation is something external to the individual—yet some of our most inspirational examples of motivation defy this simplistic explanation.

Consider, for example, several “greatest of all time” sports stars, like Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, or the Williams sisters. Each has won the pinnacle of their respective sports multiple times, yet each continued repeatedly to win that contest again and again. Why? Do they really need another trophy on the shelf? Tom Brady has enough Super Bowl rings to almost occupy each finger of both of his hands—why would he need to start working on his toes? Michael Jordan even quit basketball to play his first love—baseball—after winning the championship three times in a row, only to come back from baseball and do it again. Why? Was it the millions of dollars? The adoration? Was it the shoes?

This is called “Drive Theory”: the idea that we are motivated to get what we don’t have. If you are thirsty you are driven to drink; if you are hungry, you are driven to eat. The problem with Drive Theory is simple and twofold: one, once you eat or drink, you’re not driven anymore, and two, it doesn’t explain those superstars who reach the pinnacle again and again, yet continue to remain driven. Once you’re the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time), what’s left to drive you?

Consider yourself: Are you motivated to read this course? In truth, that’s the wrong question, because you clearly are—it’s a tautology, self-evident in the fact that you’re reading these words. The better question to ask, if one wants to understand your purpose here, is to ask “Why are you motivated to read this course?” Now the conversation shifts to what you find interesting about engineering management: your desire to “do it right where so many others don’t,” or your desire to move up the ladder and make more money, or perhaps because you were told you didn’t have a choice, or whatever else brings you here today.

The secret truth is, people are already motivated. They have a motivational outlook that usually falls into one of six categories (the first three of which are suboptimal), which in turn strongly influences their actions:

• Disinterested. They’re “checked out.” They see no value in what they’re doing or what they’re being asked to do. (Most developers are here with respect to meetings.)
• External. They’re interested in the work because it allows them opportunities to exert their influence or power, or they’re interested in accumulating more money or enhanced status. Take careful note that this is the second-worst outlook, yet “throw more money at them” is the most common response when companies start reaching for “motivational tools.”
• Imposed. The classic “peer pressure” outlook—employees do the work because they feel an imposed pressure from peers and colleagues to do the work, and they seek to avoid the guilt, shame, or fear that would come from refusing.
• Aligned. Employees in the aligned outlook can see the value arising from the work. They can see the good that the work does, such as teaching others something interesting or learning something interesting in turn.
• Integrated. Employees do the work because it jives with their life’s work or purpose, or because it offers them opportunities to voice their concerns on issues that are important to them. (This is where most companies want their employees to be. They call it “passion.”)
• Inherent. Employees here do the work simply because they enjoy the work. If you’ve ever written code solely for the joys of writing code, the same way that some artists paint just to paint, then you know the inherent outlook. This is the point at which you say things like, “I’d do this even if they didn’t pay me” or “I can’t not do this.”

The first three of these are outlooks driven by extrinsic sources (those outside of ourselves), and the second three are intrinsic (coming from within). Notice that the extrinsic motivational outlooks are all considered suboptimal, and the intrinsic ones, by contrast, optimal. This carries with it a startling realization: You can’t force people to be motivated. You can certainly try, and it may have some effect in the short term, but as soon as the external stimulus is removed, their suboptimal outlook reasserts itself.

(And if you’ve not spent the time to consider your reasons for being here, take a few moments and stare in the mirror to get a sense of where your own motivational outlook is; if you’re anywhere in the suboptimal motivational outlooks, you’re not ready to be a great manager. Physician, heal thyself.)

Shame is an ineffective motivator. The reality show The Biggest Loser is a prime example of the failure of extrinsic motivation. Participants were essentially publicly shamed if they didn’t meet their weight loss goals. In the end, The Biggest Loser’s techniques were ineffective—this is because shame is an extrinsic motivator, and the show tried to force participants to change using shame. For personal goals and lifestyle changes, intrinsic motivators are usually more effective, since they are more tailored to the individual’s personal experience and desires.

“Motivating” your people with bonuses and gifts doesn’t work for anything but short-term bursts. The key to long-term, sustained performance lies in the optimal motivational outlooks, which means finding out what makes your employees “tick,” and tapping into that. The keys to this lie in the acronym ARC: autonomy (our human need to perceive that we have choice and agency), relatedness (our need to be connected to others without concern of ulterior motives), and competence (our need to feel effective at meeting everyday challenges and opportunities).

Part of your job as an engineering manager is to maximize these three things for your people.